[darth_avocado]

I’ve had a gripe with “basket of goods” approach. Does a household really care that much if the game of clue is 10% cheaper in 2025?

There needs to be an index that reflects what people really need and the closest I’ve found is the ALICE index: https://www.unitedforalice.org/essentials-index

[naet]

I think the ALICE index is great for tracking pure essentials and survivability, which is definitely important, but it's also not unreasonable to track things that aren't 100% essential.

My household does care if basic games and toys are cheaper or more expensive; we have kids and want to get some amount of stuff for them. If the price changes we will get more or less of those things since our budget for them is limited. I probably won't fall into abject poverty if some non essential things go up in price, but I also will be buying less which has both personal and broader economic impacts.

[darth_avocado]

Absolutely. You need both. The point I’m trying to make is that we only have CPI which drives most policy decisions. However when you need about $40k to just survive and 1/3 of the households make less than $50k before taxes, you also need something like this to make effective policy decisions. Social security payments are a great example. If you adjust them only based on CPI, and essentials get more expensive at a higher rate than non essentials, you create a system where over a period of time, social security payments would barely cover the essentials.

[cudgy]

More games and toys. That’s what kids need?

[throw0101d]

> I’ve had a gripe with “basket of goods” approach. Does a household really care that much if the game of clue is 10% cheaper in 2025?

The game of Clue, and other games/toys, are in basket of goods because on average Americans spend some portion of their income per surveys:

* https://www.bls.gov/respondents/cpi/

The CPI published (and in headlines) isn't about your personal spending, but the spending on average spread over millions of people/households. The CPI is a model of reality, and so pointing to a particular instantiation of consumer will not match exactly:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_models_are_wrong

[joshuamorton]

This isn't really indexing in the same way that the CPI is indexing.

Alice pulls medians from other surveys (so it uses what I assume to be CPI food and CPI housing data, though they may also use other things), and then includes childcare and healthcare costs with some (imo) pretty painful assumptions, and then tacks on a random 10% "misc" category. It does a good job of creating a very high estimate of costs. As one example, I looked at the housing cost for an suburb I'm familiar with, and it lists the housing cost for a single individual as nearly $1800, you can pretty easily find 1BR apartments for 1-1.2K in that area, and utilities aren't going to run $600/mo, and you can pretty easily go cheaper.

And then again after doing that it tacks on a "misc" 10% budget item. I wouldn't call it a good estimate of "what people really need" and also it consumes the basket of goods, it doesn't compare to it.

[eszed]

I did not know about this, and it's excellent. Seems like a one-shot explanation for the "vibe-flation" phenomenon that many people find mystifying.

[kjshsh123]

The CPI components are individually tracked and weighting is public. You can just play with the weights.

[bpt3]

Most households are able to afford more than the essentials and do care about the cost of entertainment.

There's value in the index you described as well, but IMO it doesn't make sense to use it as the basis for the overall economy.

[darth_avocado]

> Most households are able to afford more than the essentials and do care about the cost of entertainment.

1/3 of the households make less than $50k. Mean survival budget is $35k-40k. After taxes, if a third of the population can barely meet a survival budget, an index like this needs to be part of the overall economy.

And the point of the ALICE index is exactly to address what you are pointing out. When wages, social security etc. were increasing proportionally to the essential goods, it made sense to have the CPI include other goods and services, allowing policy makers to use it as a basis for policy directions. However, when essentials become expensive faster than non essentials, it creates a problem for policy makers. It explains the “vibeflation” where policy makers were pushing back hard on economic struggles that most people are feeling by pointing to CPI numbers that show a 2-3% inflation, meanwhile people are struggling and dipping into savings to make things work.

We need to have both.

[tracker1]

Beyond just the monthly/yearly changes are the cumulative affects of those changes and disparities of wage stagnation with record inflation over time. Increased rent/housing costs are also a massive factor.

Not even counting the number of households who are at credit card and other debt limits at close to 30% interest. Trump has given some lip service to trying to get this down to 10%, but it'll really take congress to make anything happen that has a chance of sticking.

A lot of people are very underwater.

[turtletontine]

Thinking about the “overall economy” increasingly means focusing on the spending of the rich, and ignoring the poor and struggling. A consequence of increasing inequality is the rich make up more and more consumer spending. Consumer spending can therefore easily look great while most people are struggling to get by. There really is no “overall economy”, there are many many different stories happening all at once, and focusing on simple metrics lets you easily fool yourself.

[wasabi991011]

> Thinking about the “overall economy” increasingly means focusing on the spending of the rich, and ignoring the poor and struggling. A consequence of increasing inequality is the rich make up more and more consumer spending.

It means increasingly focusing on the spending of the rich, because the population is increasingly richer. Proportion of families making more that 150k (in 2024 dollars) has gone from 5% in 1967 to 33% in 2024, while both middle class (50k-150k) and poor (<50k) have decreased. [1]

[1] https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!dtoi!,f_auto,q_auto:...

[turtletontine]

Great example. The population as a whole is richer like you say, and also the richest 10% account for half of consumer spending, compared to 36% 30 years ago. [1] So yes, consuming spending has become more of a metric of the wealthy’s spending habits.

No single metric tells the whole story, and by taking them in isolation it’s quite easy to lose the forest for the trees.

[1] https://www.wsj.com/economy/consumers/us-economy-strength-ri...

[t-3]

It doesn't make a lot of sense to measure the cost of entertainment in terms of monetary inflation though. Hugely price-tiered status-signaling goods like kids toys just don't respond to market forces in the same way commodities do.

[boplicity]

Toys for kids are absolutely a necessity in most households with kids.

[barbazoo]

People could save so much money if they bought used instead of new more often, especially toys. It's crazy how much garbage we produce basically just because we literally don't share our toys.

[johnnyanmac]

In the grand scheme of things, toys are cheap and kids are huge influences on parents. I don't think pinching pennies on toys will change much unless that toy is an iPhone.

[thatfrenchguy]

I think you mean, spend $0 instead, given how many folks are donating toys on local facebook groups

[sudobash1]

I have come away from Christmas with almost the opposite conclusion. I have 3 young kids, and I notice almost an inverse correlation between the number of toys around and how contently they play.

The ideal number of toys is non-zero, but my experience suggests that it is pretty low.

[elevation]

Toys/gifts are important, but you'll find most of what you need (baby toys to bicycles) for pennies on the dollar at your local yard sale, estate sale, or free as hand-me-downs from an older family.

I would hesitate to include the retail prices for these kinds of goods to a CPI type metric because the price are incredibly flexible.

[darth_avocado]

Only when you can afford them.

[baobabKoodaa]

Why does your child need 34 or 35 toys? She can be happy with just one or two toys.

[dpark]

“Why don’t you just live like you’re destitute? So ungrateful?!”

How many toys do you have?

[olyjohn]

So many that I can't play with all of them, most of them are broken, and I don't have time to fix them, so I get really depressed because they aren't usable when I want to play with them. Now I'm trying to get rid of most of them.

[queuebert]

"Back in my day, we had a cardboard box and a stick and didn't complain ..."

[johnnyanmac]

Now you'd get CPS called for the stick.

Mostly sarcastic, but I don't think it's a hot take to realize that the curtain has shifted substantially over the decades in terms of how to raise a child.